Some of you may have seen this brief article I wrote for JIEL, which deals with the history of the GATT negotiations on the provisions that preceded the TBT agreements Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (you will find here a little more technical details) for the period 1969-1979. For reasons I don`t remember, I stopped at the end of the Tokyo cycle and never bothered to look at the future evolution of the language during the Uruguay Round. But in writing, I found another one that seemed to me that Article 2.1 of the Tokyo Round Standard Code does not quite correspond to what is written in Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the OBT agreement, and I wondered how this linguistic evolution had taken place. I have a brief look, and here`s what I found. The CTA ensures that technical regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary trade barriers. The agreement prohibits technical requirements that are created to restrict trade, contrary to technical requirements created for legitimate purposes, such as consumer or environmental protection.  Its objective is to avoid unnecessary barriers to international trade and to recognize all WTO members in order to protect legitimate interests on the basis of their regulatory autonomy, although they encourage the application of international standards. The list of legitimate interests that may justify a trade restriction is not exhaustive and covers the protection of the environment, health and safety of people and animals.  2.1.5. comply with the provisions of this article, when adopted to ensure compliance with international conventions or standards; In accordance with Article 1, this agreement applies to all industrial and agricultural products, with the exception of services, sanitary and plant health measures (as defined in the agreement on the application of sanitary and plant health measures) and “purchase specifications established by public authorities for production or consumption needs” (Article 1.4).  However, Article 2.5 provides that technical standards, when they serve one of the legitimate objectives of Article 2.2 and comply with relevant international standards, consider that they are not contrary to Article 2.2. (PDF here.) The Panel in Tuna-Dolphin GATT (I and II) did not clarify this issue, but found in this case that safe identification of dolphins was a technical regulation because of the second sentence. Therefore, it can be assumed that the labelling of NPRP-PPM products is now within the scope of technical rules.  . This toolkit contains information on transparency obligations and procedures, as well as related work on the committee, as well as other resources. . . . one. All OBT members are required to set up “demand points” that are also known as the “TBT Window” – offices that provide information on technical regulations, testing procedures and compliance with various international standards in the country.
. A standard is a document approved by an accredited body that sets out guidelines or characteristics that are not mandatory. It may contain terminology, symbols, packaging or labelling requirements and may apply to a product, process or manufacturing process. Standards differ from technical regulations in that they are not binding.